Criminal Law Practice Exam Questions

1. 1.Alex -- murder of Cal: First-degree murder if premeditated (bringing the gun suggests planning). Alternatively, felony murder -- Cal's death occurred during the commission of robbery (an inherently dangerous felony). Alex's intoxication defense: voluntary intoxication may negate specific intent but is not a defense to felony murder.
2. 2.Alex -- self-defense claim: Alex believed Cal was reaching for a weapon. Imperfect self-defense (unreasonable belief in need for deadly force) may reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter in some jurisdictions. The reasonableness of Alex's belief is questionable given the robbery context.
3. 3.Blake -- felony murder for Cal's death: As a co-conspirator in the robbery, Blake may be liable for Cal's death under felony murder even though Blake did not pull the trigger. The killing was in furtherance of the robbery. Blake's argument: the killing was outside the scope of the agreement (no weapons). Under the agency theory, only acts by co-felons trigger felony murder. Under the proximate cause theory, any foreseeable death during the felony qualifies.
4. 4.Blake -- killing of Dana: Involuntary manslaughter or depraved-heart murder. Driving 60 in a 25 zone while fleeing a robbery shows extreme recklessness (depraved heart). Alternatively, vehicular homicide. This death also occurred during the flight from the felony, potentially triggering felony murder.
5. 5.Accomplice liability: Blake is an accomplice to the robbery. Under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, Blake may be liable for any crime that is a natural and probable consequence of the robbery, including Cal's murder.
6. 6.Conspiracy: Both are guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery. Pinkerton liability extends to reasonably foreseeable crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.

1. 1.Burglary: Common law burglary requires (1) breaking and entering, (2) the dwelling of another, (3) at nighttime, (4) with intent to commit a felony therein. Using a copied key: is this 'breaking'? Constructive breaking (fraud or deception in gaining entry) may apply. Entry at night into a dwelling with intent to commit larceny satisfies the elements.
2. 2.Larceny: Trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with intent to permanently deprive. Eve took $20,000 from Frank's dresser. All elements satisfied at the time of taking.
3. 3.Robbery: If the encounter with Frank constitutes a taking from the person or presence by force or intimidation. Eve had already completed the taking before encountering Frank, so this is likely not robbery -- the force was used to escape, not to accomplish the taking. Some jurisdictions extend robbery to force used to retain possession.
4. 4.Battery/assault: Pushing Frank causing a broken hip is a battery (harmful touching). Depending on the severity, it could be aggravated battery (serious bodily injury to an elderly victim).
5. 5.Return of money: Eve's return of $15,000 does not negate the completed larceny. Larceny was complete when she took the money with intent to permanently deprive. The partial return may be relevant to sentencing but is not a defense.
6. 6.Other charges: Trespass (entering Frank's house without permission), possession of burglary tools (copied key in some jurisdictions), elder abuse.

1. 1.Involuntary manslaughter -- criminal negligence: Greg's failure to identify his target, combined with reduced visibility and alcohol consumption, constitutes criminal negligence (a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise). Firing at an unidentified target in foggy conditions with hikers present shows a high degree of negligence.
2. 2.Depraved-heart murder: If Greg's conduct demonstrates an extreme indifference to human life, this could rise to depraved-heart (second-degree) murder. Factors: shooting blindly into an area known to contain hikers, impaired by alcohol, in fog. Courts vary on where negligence ends and recklessness begins.
3. 3.Misdemeanor manslaughter: If the statutory violation (firing without positive identification) is a misdemeanor, the misdemeanor-manslaughter rule may apply. The death occurred during and as a result of the misdemeanor.
4. 4.Voluntary intoxication: Three beers may not render Greg legally intoxicated, but any impairment is relevant to whether his conduct was reckless or negligent. Voluntary intoxication is generally not a defense to general-intent crimes like involuntary manslaughter.
5. 5.Negligent homicide: Many jurisdictions have a separate negligent homicide statute for deaths caused by criminal negligence, carrying lesser penalties than manslaughter.
6. 6.Defense arguments: Greg was engaged in a lawful activity (hunting in season). The victim was wearing brown (not blaze orange as recommended). Possible contributory negligence by the victim (though this is generally not a defense in criminal law).

Correct Answer: A

This is a case of factual impossibility, which is not a defense to attempt. The woman had the specific intent to kill her husband and took a substantial step toward completing the crime by placing what she believed to be poison in his coffee. Factual impossibility (the substance was actually sugar) does not negate the intent or the attempt. Legal impossibility, where the act if completed would not be a crime, is a defense -- but killing someone with poison would be a crime.

Correct Answer: A

Self-defense is evaluated based on what the defendant reasonably believed at the time. A reasonable person confronted with a realistic-looking gun would believe they faced a threat of deadly force. The defendant's use of deadly force in response was proportionate to the perceived threat. The fact that the gun was a toy is irrelevant because the defendant had no way of knowing that. However, the continued striking after the attacker was disarmed may raise issues about excessive force.

Correct Answer: B

Under the Model Penal Code and many jurisdictions, voluntary abandonment is an affirmative defense to attempt if the defendant voluntarily and completely renounces the criminal purpose. The defendant changed his mind and drove home without any external force compelling him to stop. This constitutes voluntary abandonment. Note: under some common law approaches, abandonment is not a defense, but the MPC approach (adopted by many jurisdictions) recognizes it.

Correct Answer: B

Robbery is larceny from the person or in their presence, accomplished by force or threat of force. Under the majority common law rule, force used to retain possession of recently stolen property (as opposed to force used to accomplish the taking) can elevate larceny to robbery. The defendant used force against the security guard to retain the stolen laptop while still in close proximity to the taking. This satisfies the elements of robbery.

Correct Answer: B

Under the majority rule, withdrawal from a conspiracy requires an affirmative act that communicates withdrawal to all co-conspirators. A phone call withdrawing is sufficient to withdraw from future crimes of the conspiracy (avoiding Pinkerton liability for the robbery). However, withdrawal does not undo the already-completed crime of conspiracy itself. The agreement plus the overt act (purchasing masks and car) completed the conspiracy. Defendant B is guilty of conspiracy but not the substantive robbery.